(Shri Ashgar Ali Engineer has in the following write-up analysed the
Hindu-Muslims relations and the tensions between the two community. He
makes an appeal, based on his analysis, to the Muslims in general, and,
the Muslims intelligentsia in particular. He says that this is a plea
to exercise practical wisdom and rethink survival strategies. His thoughts
should make everyone, specially the members of the majority community,
sit-up. We are presenting below excerpts from his Article-Ed)

Before we proceed to talk about these strategies, we would like to say
a few words about the ethnic violence itself. We must note the following
in the connection to understand the nature of the problem we are dealing
with:

Firstly, ethnic or communal violence, is not peculiar to India. It has
become characteristic of all pluralist societies, especially in the third
world. In South Asia itself we witness this phenomenon, in all its intensity,
in Sri Lanka and Pakistan as well. The anti-Tamil and anti-Mohajir violence
in Sri Lanka and Pakistan respectively, is no less disturbing. The process
of development has its own dynamics in as much as it arouses consciousness
among the minorities and other weaker sections of society and they become
more assertive of their rights they were deprived of. This leads to relating
or hitting back on the part of privileged sections who monopolise the
economic resources of the society and hence recurrence of violence in
the society.

Secondly, and it follows as a corollary from above proposition that the
problem of communal violence is not rooted in religion, but in socio-economic
structure and process of development as well as degree of unevenness of
resource distribution. Ethnic violence in other words, could be treated
in a way as a development syndrome. However, one should be equally wary
of treating it as inevitable. While some factors like the perceived incompatibility
of religions, history of communal/ethnic violence in a society might tend
to aggravate it, the factors like conscious efforts to stress harmonious
living, human values, just distribution of resources etc. might tend to
lessen the tensions and finally an honest and efficient administration
might contain it.

Thirdly, it should also be understood, the problem is extremely complex
and multi-dimensional in nature. It cannot be reduced to any one factor.
Stresses of urban life, strains of competitive economic model, rivalry
among anti-social groups, political contests, increasing degree of unemployment
among the large sections of population, rivalry among intra-communal and
inter-communal, religious and secular leadership all play their role in
exacerbating communal situation.

II

With these remarks, essential to understanding the communal problem in
a developing society, we would like to address ourselves to the Muslim
brothers in the matter. As pointed out above, though communal violence
is integral to a developing society but is certainly not inevitable. While
certain factors aggravate it certain other factors can ameliorate the
situation. It all depends how and to what degree one section of population
asserts itself vis-à-vis the other section of cooperation. In my
humble opinion it is politics of confrontation between the two communities
which is today largely responsible for increased degree of communal violence.
We shall live to witness more Meeruts and Ahmedabads if politics of confrontation
is not given up. In all fairness it must be said that both Hindus and
Muslims are responsible for increasingly resorting to such politics.

In a developing society, and specially if it is pluralist one, with uneven
curve of development, confrontation can easily ensue. Grievances are umpteen.
It only requires aggressive and ambitious leadership to exploit the grievances.
However, it does not mean that one should not take up genuine grievances;
certainly one should. But communal leadership hardly ever concerns itself
with genuine grievances; certainly one should. But communal leadership
hardly ever concerns itself with genuine grievances. It exploits, more
often than not, issues with high emotional potency. Personal law. Ram
Janam Bhoomi/Babri Masjid and similar other issues came handy to such
leadership. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad on one hand (with the RSS in the
background) and, a section of Muslim leadership now represented by Babri
Masjid Action Committee and Muslim Personal Law Board, on the other, have
been playing such confrontationist game for quite sometime. This confrontation,
let it be noted, has dangerously lowered the threshold of violence and
is largely responsible for Meeruts and Ahmedabads.

Both Hindus as well as Muslims should know that these aggressive and
ambitions leaders do not represent the interests of common Hindu or Muslim
masses. They represent either own political interests or those of powerful
socio-economic exploiters. It should also be understood that neither Vishwa
Hindu Parishad nor the members of Babri Action Committee and Muslim Personal
Law Board represent what is best in Hinduism or Islam. They only exploit
respective religions politically and aggressively, at that. The masses
from both the communities unfortunately fall victim to the aggressive
propaganda of these ambitious leaders. The problem would go on becoming
more aggravated unless a way is found out to reign in their ambitions.

What could be that way out? Can one depend on the government? The answer
is clear in the negative. The government, both at state and central levels
are no less unscrupulous. Such horrendous massacres in Meerut would not
have occurred if the state and central authorities had shown any scruples
or respect for rule of law. The worst in Meerut happened in the very presence
of the Chief Minister of the state. He hardly showed any concern. One
cannot depend on opposition parties either (except the left parties which/unfortunately
are neither strong nor very vigorous in meeting this challenge but one
must say to the credit of left front government in West Bengal that it
has honestly prevented occurrence of communal violence and has greatly
succeeded in its effort). They too have hardly shown any scruples in this
matter. They also want to exploit caste and communal sentiments for electoral
gains.

The responsibility then, in a way, rests with the people themselves.
They could act independently and knock the grounds off the feet of these
communal politics. What precisely people can do in the matter? There are
two major trends of thinking. According to one and many sensible secular
leaders sympathetic to minorities subscribe to it-is the responsibility
of the majority community to be more generous towards the minority community
and make it feel secure. This can be done by protecting their religious,
cultural and linguistic rights and institutions. It is so because the
minorities tend to be quite sensitive in such matters and hence greater
responsibility of the majority community in allaying their fears.

The other view is quite opposite to this. According to this view it is
the responsibility of the minority community to behave. It must become
part of the 'national mainstream' through cultural assimilation. It should
not be preoccupied with its separate identity and try to adopt cultural
values of majority community and great its heroes as its (i.e., minority
community'') own. The example of Indonesia is often cited in this respect
(although there the majority community i.e. the Muslims have adopted the
cultural symbols and values of minority community i.e. the Hindus). According
to this view there is no communal peace in this country as Muslims refuse
to become part of national mainstream as defined by the majority community.

This view, I would like to point out, is rather simplistic, even if it
is not construed as chauvinistic. Firstly, there is no monolithic culture
of Hindus: what is mostly referred to here is upper caste Brahminical
culture. Even the Harijans and many other backward castes resent this
Brahminical domination. They are trying to trace their cultural roots
in pre-Aryan non-Brahminical domination. They are trying to trace their
cultural roots in pre-Aryan non-Brahminical tradition (what they call
sainthood tradition). Secondly the Muslims too have no monolithic cultural
tradition. The Muslim masses are an integral part of regional cultures
and are very much part of regional mainstream (which can also be described,
to use a sociologist jargon, as little Islamic tradition, i.e. regionalised
Islamic tradition). Even the urban Muslim elite from the North cannot
be said to be representative of 'purely Islamic' tradition. They too represent
composite culture with unmistakable stamp of native Indian influences.
In fact the whole debate from both sides in these terms tends to be superficial,
if not totally devoid of meaning.

In order to strengthen communal peace one must not only shun such sterile
debates but should show more positive attitudes. I would stress here the
responsibility of Muslims in this respect since I am addressing them through
this write-up. They must realise, sooner than later that the politics
of confrontation would not pay. They would always be losers in view of
the present realities in the country. Ever larger sections of people in
India are getting communalised. Neither the present political culture
(as opposed to the Constitutional culture), nor the administrative set
up is in their favour nor should they expect it to be. Their aggressive
assertions would generate much more aggressiveness in the majority community.

They should also realise that their leadership, as pointed out above,
is no less unscrupulous in exploiting emotional issues to fulfill their
own political ambitions. It would be naïve to presume that in any
sense this leadership represents their genuine interests. They should
be doubly wary in lending their support to this leadership which has made
Babri Masjid and Muslims personal law as the main issues. The Babri Masjid
controversy has done great damage to the Muslims in India. A non-issue,
thanks to the politics of some ambitious Muslim politicians, has become
the most explosive issue for the whole country today. They call for boycotting
the Republic Day Celebrations and the Babri Mosque rally held in Delhi
early this year wherein highly emotional and irresponsible speeches were
made by some over-aggressive leaders, created great deal of resentment
among common Hindus. It came as a godsend to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad
leadership to launch its campaign of Shobha Yatras and to spread anti-Muslim
feelings. I can say with some sense of responsibility that Meerut riots
would not have taken place, at least not with such for only had such abstained
campaign for Babri Mosque not been launched by the Babri Action Committee.

In my humble opinion the Muslims should better or go the mosque rather
than allow many more Meeruts to repeat. One can construct other mosques
but one cannot bring back those killed to life. Mosque is made by human
beings; let us not forget, but life is crated by God which, once destroyed,
cannot be retrieved. Will it not be sign of weakness to surrender the
mosque, it not be sign of weakness to surrender the mosque, some Muslims
may argue, perhaps with some degree of justification. Here I would submit
that what can be construed as weakness from one point of view can be described
a strategy of survival from another point of view. The latter point of
view can be equally forcefully argued. Moreover, let us remember what
the holy Quran says for such situations: "and cast not yourselves
to perdition with your own hands and do good (to others). Surely Allah
loves the doers of good".

Here clearly Allah advises us to adopt practical stratagem. It is not
wise to throw ourselves into dangerous situations knowingly and consciously.
It amounts to self destruction (it does not however mean that one should
not fight for the right causes. One needs practical wisdom as well as
proper perception and sense of commitment to make distinction between
the two i.e. throwing oneself into perdition and laying down ones life
for the right cause). Moreover, one should also take note of the fact
here that the Muslim leadership by adopting such aggressive postures on
Babri Mosque issue fulfills its political ambition whereas puts the life
of other innocent Muslims in danger. How many members of Babry Action
Committee were present in Meerut, one would like to know, when innocent
people were being killed? They were all safe in their comfortable houses
and M. P. Quarters. They did not even as much as court arrest in protest
when hundreds were being arbitrarily thrown into prisons without any fault.

This is surely fighting for no cause, but fighting at others cost. One
must, therefore heed the warning of the Quran. Also the Quran says in
this very verse that do good to others as Allah loves doers of Good. Doing
good would at least mean maintaining peace, if not anything more so that
unnecessary damage to life and property is not caused. It is, therefore,
our duty to maintain peace by not adopting aggressive postures needlessly.
The Quran also requires of the faithfuls to exercise patience and compassion.
It says" .of those who have attained to faith, and who enjoin
upon one another patience in adversity, and enjoin upon one another patience
in adversity, and enjoin on one another compassion. "( see the Quran
90:17). What does patience and compassion demand? Certainly not aggression,
confrontation and adventurism like that of our Muslim leaders.

Also, the Muslims are aware of the story of Mosque of Zihar described
in the Quran. It had become the centre of conspiracy for the unbelievers
and hence the Quran denounced it though it was a mosque. The Quran says,
"And those who built a mosque to cause harm and (to help) disbelief,
and to cause disunion among the believers, and a refuge for him who made
war against Allah and His Messenger before. And they certainly swear :
We despire naught but good. And Allah bears witness that they were certainly
liars' (The Quran 9 : 107). It came to be known as Masjid-e-Zihar (Mosque
of Harm) as it was harmful to Islam and Muslims and was ultimately demolished
at the instance of the Prophet.

The Babri Mosque has become a centre of storm due to the controversy
of its being located on the site of birth of the Lord Rama who is highly
venerated by the Hindus. Communal tension has immensely increased on account
of this controversy as if it has become a centre of controversy for the
communalists. Hundreds of human lives have been lost and would continue
to be lost on account of this controversy. The Muslims, in my opinion,
should show magnanimity and a noble gesture of gifting away the mosque
to the Hindu brothers and constructing another mosque elsewhere nearby.
It should not be, and would not be, treated as a sign of weakness but
a gesture of magnanimity of the part of Muslims. It would have salutary
effect on many Hindus. Also, such a gesture would loosen the hold of Hindu
communal organizations like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and strengthen the
hands of those secular minded Hindus who have sympathy for Muslims and
who anyway want to build a modern and secular India. Communal fascism
is as much a menace to them as a minorities.

Some Muslims can argue that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad has prepared a
list of 300 mosques and if we give away Babri mosque would they not be
encouraged to demand other mosques more aggressively. Yes, this can happen.
But, in my opinion would not happen. On the contrary, gifting away Babri
Mosque would have ennobling effect on Hindus in general, and secular and
progressive Hindus, in particular. They would fight resolutely if the
VHP makes any further demands for other mosques. I have reached this conclusion
after great deal of discussions with them. As such many of them have stood
by Muslims whenever they have suffered and I am sure they would fight
much more vigorously if the Muslims take initiative in defusing the communal
tension by giving up their claim on the Babri Mosque. It would also be
in keeping with the practical wisdom.

III

There are other issues as well which must be grappled with to defuse
communal situation in the country. It is vehemently argued by many Hindus
that Muslims should merge with the national mainstream and should not
insist on their separate identity. As already pointed out Muslims are
very much part of national mainstream if it is not defined purely in Brahmanical
terms. It would also not be in keeping with the democratic tradition if
they cannot be proud of their religio-cultural identity. Honest sense
of such identity does not indicate any separatist tendency nor can it
be a threat to national integration. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad had said
that I am proud of my Islamic heritage and Islamic identity and yet he
was uncompromisingly opposed to vivisection of our country. Separatism
is no product of ones sense of distinct identity (such identities are
jealously guarded by sub-sects and sub-castes in all religions); it is
rather product of sense of unresolvable material grievances. Partition
of the country could have been averted had some of the genuine grievances
of Muslims been resolved in the right spirit. Thus it should be understood
the Muslims would remain an integral part of Indian mainstream even with
their distinct sense of identity.

I would also urge upon the Muslims brothers to be quite proud of their
Indian identity. Maulana Hussain Ajimad Madan, a great 'alim (theologian)
and freedom fighter had also pointed out that Muslims should distinguish
between millat (an international Islamic community) and nation or the
country which is a geographical or territorial concept. They are as much
part of a community. The psychological (milli) identity cannot overwhelm
material (territorial) identity. It is unfortunate that some Muslim leaders
and 'ulama often talk of 'pure Islamic' identity which is a theological
myth. There cannot be anything like pure Islamic identity. Muslims live
in different countries, in different social and cultural milieu and whereas
religiously they are Muslims sociologically they are integral part of
that socio-cultural milieu. Their identity cannot but be influenced by
such a milieu.

The communal temperature would certainly go down of Muslims understand
and appreciate the balance they have to strike between their Muslimness
and Indianness, it would knock the ground off the feet of communalists,
they should also understand that in Pakistan today regional identity is
taking precedence over Muslim identity. The Sindhis, Baluchis, Muharjirs,
Pathans and Punjabies assert their respective identities. It is the nationality
question which has assumed great importance in Pakistan. The smaller nationalities
greatly resent Punjabi domination and are asserting their separate identity
vis-à-vis the Punjabis. The Indian Muslims have to learn a great
deal from this development in Pakistan. The Pathan-Muhajir conflict was
as bloody as the Hindu-Muslim conflict in India. Let us remember theological
unity cannot ensure sociological harmony nor sociological harmony can
ensure theological unity. One does not necessarily follow the other. There
can be harmony between Hindus and Muslims despite radically different
theological systems and there may not be any harmony between different
territorial or regional groups of Muslims despite same theological systems.
There are altogether different reasons for sociological conflicts than
theological ones.

Keeping all this in view the Muslims should proudly assert their Indian
identity and should not think it in anyway conflicts with their Indian
identity and should not think it in anyway conflicts with their Muslims
identity. Not only this they should assert their regional identity as
well (i.e., Gujarati, Tamil, Konkani etc). They should not encourage unnecessary
debate like their Muslimnees precedes their Indianness or vice versa.
Both are equally essential and must be stressed with proper sense of balance.
This would also considerably help in cooling down communal temperature.
Unnecessarily and aggressively flaunting one's Muslimness needlessly provokes
others and raises communal tension.

Similarly we must understand the flaunting ones religiosity in secular
public places is neither in keeping with religious solemnity nor in the
interests of communal peace. More and more mosques are being equipped
with loudspeakers. Not only azan (call to prayer) but also prayers are
said loudly on the microphone system. Also often prayers are said on roadside
causing considerable traffic and other problems of others. On idd days
even railway platforms are blocked, at least in Bombay. These appear to
be trivial matters but do not go unnoticed by others Prayers are highly
solemn spiritual affair and certainly not meant for public display, much
less causing public inconvenience. Such a public display becomes irritant
to others. I request my Muslim brothers to seriously rethink over these
matters. The Hindus match this by public recital or nightlong bhajans
on loudspeakers and cause no less nuisance. Such competitive religiosity
is most irreligious in my opinion and must be avoided. By taking initiative
Muslims can do much credit to themselves. They must minimise use of loudspeakers
in the mosque (they can be used on special occasions like Idd and some
other festivals) and also they should stop praying on roadsides and better
use adjacent grounds.

Muslims have a unique opportunity in India. They are neither the rulers
nor the ruled as pointed out by the noted scholar W. C. Smith. They are
partners in power along with Hindus, Sikhs and other. It is both a challenge
and an opportunity. They must prepare to meet this challenge and avail
of the opportunity. They have guaranteed rights not only to practice their
religion but also to establish educational and other institutions. In
order to meet the challenge of a modern secular society, one has to lay
great emphasis on modern, secular education. Muslims are regrettably/highly
backward in the field of education. None but they themselves are to be
blamed for this state of affairs. Though one of the primary causes of
educational backwardness is their economic backwardness, there is also
lack of conscious efforts on their part. A section of Muslims have definitely
benefited from economic development in the country. They have acquired
a measure of economic affluence but even they are hardly conscious of
founding modern educational and technical institutions. They spend more
money on religious ostentation rather than on such causes.

Even to share power with others in modern secular democratic society
they have to acquire higher educational qualifications. How else can they
successfully compete for political, civil, military or police jobs? How
can they become equitable partners? I understand the Muslims have to face
prejudices and discrimination. But for this very reason their responsibility
increases. They must work harder and acquire merit which cannot be ignored,
even by the most prejudiced. This challenge they will have to accept and
cannot be evaded, if one wants to make it. There are many such examples
in the world. For example, the Jews of Europe and America. Who does not
know the hardships they faced and discrimination they were subjected to.
They did not enjoy even democratic rights the Muslims do in India today.

The European Jewry while preserving its identity, culture and language,
silently worked for their educational and material progress. Their achievements
were by far the most excellent. They produced great thinkers, scientists,
financiers and industrialists. No one could ignore their merit. A small
minority, less than three percent in America today, dominate the media,
the financial institutions and greatly influence political policies. No
American President can ignore their interests or dare to offend Israel.
All this the Jews achieved much before Israel came into existence and
despite Hitlerite persecution. The Indian Muslims can learn much from
the Jews and challenges they faced.

They can certainly learn something from Indian Christians too. This community
is numerically very small and yet highly educated and much more disciplined.
They spend large chunk of money received from foreign sources on establishing
premier educational institutions and other public welfare schemes. Since
early seventies the Muslims too received sizeable amounts from West Asian
countries but most of the fund were spent on building mosques, macrasas
and mausoleums. There is not a single instance of establishing any secular
educational institution. The Middle East phenomenon further consolidated
fundamentalism among the Muslims and made their politics more competitive
and confrontationist. It was a great opportunity the Indian Muslims lost.
They could have procured fund for establishing modern educational, financial
and industrial institutions and could have increased their political clout,
Instead the Muslims leaders and theologians, with more funds in their
pockets, acquired more aggressive postures and certainly contributed in
pushing up communal tension in the country and putting many more Muslim
lives at stake.

V

I would appeal to the Muslim intelligentsia to seriously reassess the
whole situation and do little bit of introspection and self-criticism.
We are tending to become more and more self-righteous and always finding
fault with others. If we are interested in combating communalism we must
own up our faults as well and as ruthlessly as we also with others. In
may opinion it is sine qua none for solving the communal problem. Also,
we must build pressure on Muslim leadership not to indulge in politics
of confrontation but instead opt for politics of cooperation. If they
do not listen to us we must disown them and make them and make the Muslim
masses conscious of the game the Muslims leadership plays art their cost.
We will, then, acquire strong moral right to appeal to our Hindu brothers
to campaign strongly against the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other communal
organisations.

We should also realise that a pluralist society cannot stay democratic
without secularism. As far as minorities are concerned the alternative
to democracy is fascism or dictatorship which would be a great disaster
for them. Hence it is in the interest of minorities to strengthen secular
forces in the country as it is sine qua non for democracy in a religiously
pluralist society.

We should also try hard to create infrastructure for educational and
economic progress with whatever means are available with us. In other
words while taking part in secular political processes in the country
we should concentrate on educational and economic progress and meet the
new challenges in cooperation with other communities. We must induce greater
healthy political consciousness among Muslims and not religious aggressiveness
so as to make them equitable partners in democratic power. This is not
something impossible to achieve. We must also undertake necessary reforms
which would do justice in true Islamic spirit to the women and other weaker
sections in the society. It is highly necessary and perhaps inevitable
in the interest of our own progress. Let us remember justice is more central
to a society than law. Unfortunately we emphasise law at the cost of justice.

All this does not amount to a final recipe to solve the communal problem.
But it does provide us with an outline for a better survival strategy
in challenging circumstances. I hope my Muslim brothers would give my
plea a serious thought before accepting or rejecting it.